Type

View/Open

Date

Author

Share

Metadata

Abstract

In this paper we present alternatives for describing and explaining the developments of
Nordic health care in general and hospitals in particular. The backdrop is the
Norwegian hospital reform of 2002, a reform that seems to part with predominant
conceptions of health care as a local political responsibility. Although Norway, Sweden
and Denmark appear to have been on similar pathways with a history of relatively
decentralized and welfare-oriented health care systems, there are differences among
them that should not be overlooked. The idea is to look at how slightly different
development dynamics and actor constellations may produce different results, e.g. as a
consequence of reforms. One question raised is whether current development patterns
signify a break with the Nordic decentralized path in healthcare organization. We argue
that it is necessary to understand how the decentralized path was created in each case in
order to understand the dilemmas involved in the contemporary governances structures,
with a possible trend towards the unmaking of the traditional model of decentralized
welfare provision. We focus on the emergence of neo-liberal ideas such as purchaserprovider
models, extended patients’ choice, and activity-based funding, and why such
models and experiments gained a stronger impact in Sweden than in Norway and
Denmark. Norway’s reform is a delayed reform, but it is also a reform pointing in a new
direction. It was delayed in the sense that much of what is now introduced has been
introduced previously in other countries, particularly in Sweden. The reform is also
innovative, however, due to its emphasis on state ownership, and it thus represents a
challenge to the Nordic decentralized model of health care. Denmark’s uniqueness
consists in not having undertaken any major reform yet, although healthcare has
become an increasingly contested topic in Denmark, and something may be about to
happen. Concluding that reform dynamics has played out somewhat differently in each
case, we discuss the prospects of an end of the decentralized political-professional
regimes. The emerging regime, exemplified by Norway, may not accurately be described
as a combination of ‘managers and markets’ (a term used to characterize the situation in
the United States), but rather as a regime of managers and state enterprises that compete
with each other under public-professional stewardship.